Front Page      Et Tu, Brutus? Elizabeth Warren's Credibility Plummeted After Endorsing Hillary Clinton
  THIS WEEK IN NYC 
 
 
MANHATTAN CHRONICLES
June 10, 2016
Byline by: Alexandra Ares

ET TU, BRUTUS? Elizabeth Warren Credibility Plummeted After Endorsing Hillary Clinton

Yesterday's beloved hero has become today's cringing opportunist. It takes years to build a sterling reputation, and seconds to lose it. Elizabeth Warren lost much of it last night, when she sold out in a TV appearance on NBC where she fully endorsed Hillary Clinton without a word of caution regarding the ongoing criminal FBI investigation -- of which the entire Democratic party and mainstream media are silent -- or their difference of opinion on bank reform. It appeared to be a staged "money-laundering" or, if you will, "image-laundering" transaction: She lent her squeaky clean name and hand to bleach Hillary's reputation, so soiled by the recent Inspector General report and the ongoing FBI criminal investigation, as well as by her cozy relations with Special Interests Money and Wall Street and Clinton Foundation donations, in exchange for a VP post or who knows what else. The internet and social media promptly exploded with cries from her disappointed fans from Facebook, to Twitter, to the independent website Mother Jones, to the New York Times comments section:

 "Juan, Queens, NY: She just lost a lot of my respect. She is just such an opportunist.”

 “Thomas Gynn, Santa Rosa, CA: “So, Elizabeth Warren, the firebrand who was elected because of her   principledstand against Big Money in Politics, has now endorsed the candidate who has benefited the most from this kind of money. She was neutral in the campaign, never speaking about the financial excesses of either party. Perhaps, if she had the courage of her convictions, she would have endorsed Bernie, who made the only argument against Big Money in politics. She has demonstrated that her allegiance is to the Democratic Party rather than the American People. Another one bites the dust.”

The Sane Progressive has a riveting rant: Obama's and Warren's Endorsements of Clinton are Unacceptable, while H.A. Goodman, a Bernie supporter who sounds increasingly like the last American Resistance fighter, argues passionately how Warren's Endorsement Hurt America.   

Warren is now locks, stocks and barrel available to front the Democratic ticket, only that by accepting the role of Crooked Hillary's newest cheerleader, her credibility and stock value plummeted. 

Over a year ago, before I knew about Sanders’s and Trump’s presidential bids, I, too, had put my name on a moveon.org list in support of an Elizabeth Warren for President. To all progressives and even to independents like me, she was a genuine leader, unanimously liked and respected. We were disappointed and puzzled when she didn’t run. For the first time I thought: Well, maybe she is not tough enough to run, running for president is a juggernaut job. Later, as Bernie’s campaign took fire, I, too, was surprised that Warren stood silent. The contrast between Sanders’s and Clinton’s positions and reputation was very clear, yet Warren suspiciously lacked the courage of her conviction, one way or another.  I saw this as a weakness of character and as a lack of leadership. When the political situation sorted itself out, Warren finally come out of the shadows, but not to advocate for any positions, or to comment on the findings of the Inspector General Report. She instead engaged in a Twitter war with Trump, throwing taunts, which I found to be below her dignity. My last year’s idol, no longer stood for a cause, like Sanders, she became a mere attack dog. 

Warren launched low blows against Trump, unworthy of both common sense and her own reputation: That he benefited from the ups and downs of the housing market in doing business, which is what any developer does. That as a businessman he put his business first instead of public service, which is nonsense, especially since Trump donated to the Clintons and to many charities. In one interview she told Stephen Colbert that Trump had started out with a few hundred millions dollars inheritance from his dad. Colbert corrected her saying that Trump started with only one million dollar loan from his dad that he later paid back; Warren replied dis-ingeniously that had Trump put that money in an index fund he would have made the same fortune he has today. This was anther lie meant to negate his entire business record. To his credit, Trump never sat on the beach in Florida doing nothing but waiting for his inheritance to grow in the bank, he has actively build many businesses, some more successful than others. The reason why Bernie won the respect of so many people, and I could detect a note of respect even in the commentaries on Fox News (for whom last year, a socialist candidate meant the devil wore the American Flag). Bernie never engaged in smear attacks. He stuck to his agenda, and erred on the side of being too cavalier about the "damn emails."

Finally, when Warren endorsed Hillary Clinton last night on NBC, my once hero suddenly looked like a lightweight. Someone who’d sold out her conviction to audition for a VP spot and who paid lip service to the Democratic establishment. I no longer trusted her. Her words sounded fake. Even worse, Trump’s dismissive word “Pocahontas” popped into my mind, validating his cruel diminutive. Someone who had once bent her heritage to jumpstart her career at Harvard, was now bending her convictions to jumpstart her career in a Clinton administration.      

To be clear, when I first heard from Trump that Warren had claimed to be of Indian heritage to get tenure at Harvard, I wasn’t angry at Warren. I was just saddened that we live in a politically correct twisted world where a woman so brilliant like Elizabeth Warren had to resort to checking the wrong racial box to get the right job. Paradoxically, of the remaining  two candidates, only a President Trump will ensure that more brilliant men and women will NOT have to lie about their heritage in order to get a good job, and that merit, not race, will be the sole hiring criteria.

A true-blue Warren would have at least waited until the results of the FBI criminal investigation into Hillary's use of her private server were released, before making her endorsement. A true-blue Warren would have supported Bernie Sanders at the Convention and tried to leverage her considerable influence to inject progressive ideas into the Democratic Party’s platform. A true-blue Warren would have cashed her chips for a cause, not for a post. 

    Alexandra Ares is the editor of Manhattan Chronicles, and the author of several books, most recently Brand New Americans